The concept of oikeiōsis is the characteristic of Stoic ethics. The ontological foundation of the oikeiōsis is based on its pantheistic material monism. Thecosmos is constituted by god (gods), humans and natural world as a complete divine substance. The whole cosmos is controlled and directed by the divinelogos. For the stoics, matter is the only true reality. Man is joined by soul and body as a structured wholistic self. The oikeiōsis is in developing processes.Living in accordance with nature and making all those belong to oneself as one’s own is the first stage of oikeiōsis at the moment of the birth of all the animals,including humans. At this stage animals attain their oikeiōsis by their instincts. At the beginning of its birth, a baby lives in agreement with its nature just as theway animals do. When it grows up, as its reason develops, living in accordance with nature turns out to be living in accordance with reason. The second stage ofoikeiōsis is then to attain summum bonum, leading a virtuous life, since man as rational being is capable of recognizing what his constitution is. Because allmen possess the same reason and belong to the same human family, oikeiōsis by nature has social dimension. At the third stage, a man should take intoaccount of his fellow’s well-being as his own oikeiōsis. A man should love the others as he loves himself.This paper tries to argue why the Stoics’ oikeiōsis concept based on its pantheistic material monism. The reason is its objection to any forms of dualism, especially the Platonic dualism; the dualistic opposition between the immaterial and material worlds, that of the psyche and body, and even that of rational and irrational. The Stoics’ oikeiōsis is not only based on its idea of the wholistic cosmos, but also found on that of the structured wholistic self; i.e. the psychophysical whole and the relations between a human being with itself, with the others, and with the natural world. This kind of wholistic ideas of the cosmos and of humans are what Plato denied.

Most contemporary philosophers believe that things in the world can be exhaustively and exclusively divided into two categories: abstract objects and concrete ones, and a main “problem” about this division is where exactly the line between these two categories should be drawn? Hoffman and Rosenkrantz (2003) argued that every ordinary distinction between these two categories was subject to some serious problems and counterexamples, and they therefore proposed a novel distinction that they believed to be completely unproblematic. This paper argues against their proposal by appealing to the same strategy and criterion that they set up for other proposals. This paper also argues for two other points. First, it argues that the fundamental reason why it is so hard (even impossible) to find “the right” distinction between abstract and concrete objects is that philosophers’ “intuition” about the distinction is nothing but the result of conflation and confusion of several non-equivalent and/or vague distinctions. Second, it argues that the problem of the distinction between abstract and concrete objects is of no philosophical significance; it is, therefore, a pseudo problem that need not be investigated at all.

Peirce and James have been regarded as co-founders of pragmatism, but their pragmatisms differ significantly. This paper examines and compares, onthe basis of the distinction between the levels of community and individual inquiry, Peirce’s early and James’s pragmatic views of truth, reality, and methodof inquiry; and points out that Peirce argues that these three notions could be satisfactorily explicated only on the level of community inquiry, whereas Jamesinsists on characterizing them on the level of individual inquiry─this can explain why James’s pragmatic view of truth has suffered severe objections and misunderstandings.

I will focus upon the arguments of Wang Yang Ming’s theory of “Zhi Hsin He Yi”(知行合一) in this paper. Concerning this issue, scholars have proposed various interpretations, pondering whether “Yi Nian Fa Dong Chu” (一念發動處) is applicable to “Zhi Hsin He Yi.” For instance, Chen Lai accentuates “Chong Hsin” (重行) and argues that “Yi Nian Fa Dong Chu” is not applicable to “Zhi Hang He Yi.” Besides Li Ming Hui suggests that “Yi Nian”(意念) is also an “act” in “Zhi Hsin He Yi” so as to solve the entanglement. Inspired by these researches, I intend to analyze the intricate relationship between “Zhi Hang He Yi” and “Yi Nian.” Furthermore, I will reevaluate whether “Shan Nian”(善念) and “Er Nian”(惡念) can be categorized as an “act” in Wang Yang Ming’s theoretical framework. Finally, I attempt toassimilate the arguments proposed by Chen Lai and Li Ming Hui while returning to the core principle of Wang Yang Ming’s “Zhi Hsin He Yi.”

“Kanhua Chan”, normally known as the Chan practice of huatou, is a famous method in the Chinese Chan tradition, while “non-abiding” is a fundamental thought in the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch. Based on the Chan method of huatou taught by Master Sheng Yen, this thesis tries to investigate whether there is consistence between the Chan practice of huatou and the thought of “non-abiding”, so as to put forward some critical comments on the Chan method of huatou. This thesis points out that the Chan practice of huatou presupposes the thought of Lankavatara Sutra that deluded thoughts can and should be eliminatedcompletely, rather than the thought as expressed by Huineng the Sixth Patriarch in the Platform Sutra that deluded thoughts need not be eliminated and thatone should not give rise to the thought of eliminating them completely. In other words, what is consistent with the Chan practice of huatou is the thoughtof ever-abiding mind of tathagata-garbha that advocates “the complete elimination of deluded thoughts,” rather than the prajna thought of non-abiding that advocates “non-abiding from one thought-moment to another,” so it is a method that follows the Chan principle of Northern School, rather than that of Southern School.Precisely speaking, therefore, the Chan method of huatou is, judged by the characteristics of its method, a Chan approach pertaining to the Northern School, not the Southern School. Although it is also one of the expedient Dharma methods for achieving liberation and buddhahood, it is, from the perspective of Huineng’s Chan teaching, not a method of practice that can truly help people pacify their mind ultimately, unless one adopts the manner Master Sheng Yen used in teaching the Chan practice of huatou, a manner that, based on some concepts derived from the prajna sutras and the Platform Sutra, strictly adheres to the thought of “non-abiding,” guiding it to the method of Chan practice that can ultimately bring about the effect of pacifying the mind.

This paper tries to elucidate what Nietzsche’s view of history and his thesis about the relationship between history and life would be in his essay On the Advantages and Disadvantages of History for the Life. It is above all to explain how Nietzsche criticizes the teleology of history and the methodology of historiography in this article: Nietzsche claims that there would be no ultimate destination of human activities and the history itself, and that historical writing could not fulfill the objective standard. In another words, the historical writing which runs after the goal of objectivity would, as purely theoretical knowledge, become an obstacle of human life and action, and would then wither and ossify the human life. Historical knowledge and memory would be, in the sight of Nietzsche, a stone of stumbling to autonomous creativity and practice of human life. By this Nietzsche demonstrates the characteristics of human individual life: Neither can life be eternal and immortal, nor would it even be a substantial being; at the same time, it would not necessarily be rational, moral and just. Life is mortal and is a perpetually changing and unfathomable phenomenon. By analyzing the attitude toward history and historical writing, Nietzsche lays the emphasis that life would have to realize itself and surpass itself by the autonomous determination, action and practice.

This paper focuses on two famous debates concerning “humaneness” between Zhu Xi and the Hu Xiang scholars. Based on the survey of literature, this paper tries to justify, at least partly, what Zhu Xi comprehends about the philosophical position of Hu Xiang School. According to Zhu Xi’s philosophy, “humaneness” specifically labels the complete virtue of mind which exemplifies excellent qualities. On the one hand, Zhu Xi objects to the claim of those Hu Xiang scholars that“humaneness” can be defined as “vivid perception”; on the other hand, he argued that perception is by nature attributed to the intellectual virtue, although the humane person certainly possesses the competence of perception. As a matter of fact, the key point of the two debates between Zhu Xi and the Hu Xiang scholars is how to treat Hsieh Liang-Tso’s interpretation of humaneness.Furthermore, this paper argues that Cheng Hao, Hsieh’s teacher, illustrated distinctively the concept of humaneness in his own analogical or metaphorical way, but Hsieh’s formulation of it is akin to definition of a certain kind. This missed link or the rhetorical nuance is the reason why the Hu Xiang scholars follow Hsieh’s approach to humaneness and Zhu Xi has to argue against their ideas of humaneness.

It is said that Hegel’s method is dialectic, while the dialectical method is said to be the form of ‘thesis-antithesis-synthesis’. This paper argues that both these sayings are legends which lack support from the text. It then studies the text of Phenomenology of Spirit and advocates that what Hegel talks about in his work is the method of phenomenology. It also surveys and criticizes the other interpretations. As for dialectic, this paper proposes in accordance with the text to ascribe it to Hegel’s metaphysics rather than his method.

Rosenberg (2006) argues for reductionism in biology, and he has a special name for the position he adopts: Darwinian Reductionism (DR). The reason why it is dubbed Darwinian is that natural selection plays a key role in answering questions as to what form reductionism should take and what is the lowest level that biological explanations can be reduced to. Given that most contemporary philosophers of biology are anti-reductionists, Rosenberg begins his argument with a diagnosis of why they have been led to embrace the antireductionism: (1) the inapplicability of Nagelian account of reduction to biological sciences; (2) Mayr’s distinction between proximate and ultimate explanations; and (3) the literal truth of Dobzhansky’s dictum that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. In this paper, I will critically examine Rosenberg’s DR. I will begin with an analysis of how Rosenberg responds to the anti-reductionists’ considerations, and how he is led step by step to DR. Then I will argue that an internal intension is implicit in DR, for it turns out to be not only Darwinian, but also Nagelian. Such an intension, as I will argue, brings some troubles to DR: (1) DR has difficulties convincing biologists who agree with Mayr that biology, as a discipline, is unique and autonomous. (2) DR is forced to abandon the ideal unification of all physical sciences, based on the Nagelian account of reductionism. In addition, DR has difficulties explaining why the principle of natural selection, among all laws in the physical sciences, turns out to be the only one law in its kind. (3) Ironically and to Rosenberg’s surprise, DR has difficulties rendering the principle of natural selection compatible with the physicalism. The critical examination of DR leads me to the conclusion: if we aim to figure out how explanation and reduction in biology proceed, instead of confining ourselves to the law-based account, which is modeled on the physical sciences, we should pay more attention to how biology is distinct from the physical sciences.

At the first glance, Mou Zongsan's and Heidegger’s interpretations of Kant seem to be irrelevant to each other. The former focuses on “intellectual intuition” while the latter on “imagination”. In fact, the nexus between them may be more complicated. In Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, Heidegger suggests that the essence of cognition in general is intuition and the receptivity of sensible intuition is the root of human finitude. We can conclude his thought into the following theses: (1) Human beings have only sensible intuition; (2) Human beings are finite. In his Zhi de zhijue yu Zhongguo zhewue, Mou translates §16 and §25 of Kantbook and he claims the following theses in contrast to Heidegger: (1) Human beings can have intellectual intuition; (2) Human beings are finite and yet they can be infinite. Mou is determined to go beyond the line delimited by Heidegger. Therefore, Mou thinks that human beings should have “intellectual intuition” and thus they are able to create “thing-in-itself”. In this paper, I try to argue that Mou’s doctrine is not a reformulation of Kant’s philosophy, but an illustration of a relation between “heart-mind” and “thing”: Heart-mind is an ability to bestow value on other things.Despite Mou’s doctrine is not as radical as we may think, we can still consider that he exaggerates the status of human beings. Mou puts his ontology out of time and he regards an infinite noumenon as the ground of his ontology. In Heidegger’s opinion, this is doomed to failure. In Kantbook, Heidegger highlights the concept of imagination in order to show that human beings are both sensible and intellectual. Any concept is worth to be cognized only if it goes through a procedure by imagination─schematized─and then they have spatial-temporal elements. In this sense, there is not a separation between understanding and sensibility, spontaneity and receptivity. All in all, human capacity to reason cannot separated from finitude. Under Heidegger’s challenge, Mou’s radical claim on “infinite heart-mind” seems not possible to stand firm.